Gothic evil and more evil questions
- alhoon
- Invisible Menace
- Posts: 8907
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:46 pm
- Location: Chania or Athens // Greece
Gothic evil and more evil questions
I was thinking about Gothic horror take on evil. Killing your child was a terrible sin that scarred your soul forever and ever etc. Killing your parents seemed to be considered worse though (if we go by Ravenloft's darklords).
And that's just one thing that I noticed.
With religion being so important in 15th-19th century, killing a priest or defiling a church was also way worse than murder or arson.
On the other hand, it seems to me that beating your kid with a belt or even club, or even your wife was considered an OK (or in case of kids actually encouraged) form of discipline.
What I would like to discuss is what would (from Gothic horror perspective) be the "point of no return". Which acts would be ultimately damning in Ravenloft aside of the couple of examples in the list?
Also, what should the "actual" NPC-wise effect of committing those be?
Aside of DPower checks and curses, how would "nature" react? Hags corrupt nature, Darklords dominate it, people suffering from DP curses may have problems with it.
And the most important and least-of-all touched subjects: How would the rest of the people react if they learned of one of those acts? Would they, deep down, know the sin is "inexcusable" whatever they hear? Would they react according to their individual beliefs with the "incomplete understanding of morality" law? Would they perhaps realize one such person as someone with a tainted soul?
Let me give a better example: A drunkard and bully, nominally paying respect to the morninglord gets a visit from his priest who try to get him off alcohol. When the priest tries to forcefully take the bottle away from the drunkard's hands tensions flare and the drunkard in addled anger stabs the priest... and kills him.
- Am I right to assume that (gothic horror perspective) whatever the drunkard's excuses ("I didn't mean it to happen!", "I was drunk!" "I wanted to just get him off!" etc) whether they are true or not, whether the drunkard believe them or not, Dark Powers (if they notice) will go "BOOOM!" on the drunkard?
- Assume there are no witnesses and he runs to his wife. Will she instinctively feel that her husband has done something way worse than the usual "get drunk and beat someone senseless"? How about the rest of the village? How about the local smith? How about a stranger on the road?
How about the PCs?
- How will -nature- react (let alone the Dark Powers for a moment) ? Will his dog, faithful companion till that point shun him feeling his master has committed a terrible, inexcusable, soul-shattering sin? Will it start raining? Will vermin be more attracted to him?
- How about other evil people? Does evil call to evil? Will say Ivana, if she's passing by "feel" something in the man? Will the local werewolf be more likely to pay him a visit? Will Toben the Many decide he will kill the rest of the village but make him a part? Will a fiend decide to pay a visit?
I have some semi-formed opinions about some of those, but they are actually fluid. I may decide to go one way in one adventure and another in another...
And that's just one thing that I noticed.
With religion being so important in 15th-19th century, killing a priest or defiling a church was also way worse than murder or arson.
On the other hand, it seems to me that beating your kid with a belt or even club, or even your wife was considered an OK (or in case of kids actually encouraged) form of discipline.
What I would like to discuss is what would (from Gothic horror perspective) be the "point of no return". Which acts would be ultimately damning in Ravenloft aside of the couple of examples in the list?
Also, what should the "actual" NPC-wise effect of committing those be?
Aside of DPower checks and curses, how would "nature" react? Hags corrupt nature, Darklords dominate it, people suffering from DP curses may have problems with it.
And the most important and least-of-all touched subjects: How would the rest of the people react if they learned of one of those acts? Would they, deep down, know the sin is "inexcusable" whatever they hear? Would they react according to their individual beliefs with the "incomplete understanding of morality" law? Would they perhaps realize one such person as someone with a tainted soul?
Let me give a better example: A drunkard and bully, nominally paying respect to the morninglord gets a visit from his priest who try to get him off alcohol. When the priest tries to forcefully take the bottle away from the drunkard's hands tensions flare and the drunkard in addled anger stabs the priest... and kills him.
- Am I right to assume that (gothic horror perspective) whatever the drunkard's excuses ("I didn't mean it to happen!", "I was drunk!" "I wanted to just get him off!" etc) whether they are true or not, whether the drunkard believe them or not, Dark Powers (if they notice) will go "BOOOM!" on the drunkard?
- Assume there are no witnesses and he runs to his wife. Will she instinctively feel that her husband has done something way worse than the usual "get drunk and beat someone senseless"? How about the rest of the village? How about the local smith? How about a stranger on the road?
How about the PCs?
- How will -nature- react (let alone the Dark Powers for a moment) ? Will his dog, faithful companion till that point shun him feeling his master has committed a terrible, inexcusable, soul-shattering sin? Will it start raining? Will vermin be more attracted to him?
- How about other evil people? Does evil call to evil? Will say Ivana, if she's passing by "feel" something in the man? Will the local werewolf be more likely to pay him a visit? Will Toben the Many decide he will kill the rest of the village but make him a part? Will a fiend decide to pay a visit?
I have some semi-formed opinions about some of those, but they are actually fluid. I may decide to go one way in one adventure and another in another...
"You truly see what a person is made of, when you begin to slice into them" - Semirhage
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia
My DMGuild work!
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia
My DMGuild work!
-
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 637
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 11:30 am
Re: Gothic evil and more evil questions
Evil should not overtly call to evil in Ravenloft, both because all means of the detect evil spell don't work (and life would be much too easy if there was a way that ANYONE could be sure that someone else has failed a power check, but also for the following reason....) and because as Azalin and a certain vampire would be happy to tell us, a shared commitment to being evil does not necessarily make a good foundation for a (un)life long partnership.
In my own personal opinion any logical reasonable evil person (which granted doesn't apply to most darklords or at the very least they have some kind of huge blind spot/subject that they just can't /won't think logically about) would prefer to work with good people rather than more evil people. It gets a bit prisoner's deliemah but why would an evil person want to work with another evil person, when evil people are known for going back on their word/following agreements to the letter rather than the spirit, and or just killing other people for fun.
The goal of a smart evil villain when it comes to recruiting minions is finding ones who can be convinced to believe that the villain is good/it is the morally right thing to do to follow the villains orders.
In my own personal opinion any logical reasonable evil person (which granted doesn't apply to most darklords or at the very least they have some kind of huge blind spot/subject that they just can't /won't think logically about) would prefer to work with good people rather than more evil people. It gets a bit prisoner's deliemah but why would an evil person want to work with another evil person, when evil people are known for going back on their word/following agreements to the letter rather than the spirit, and or just killing other people for fun.
The goal of a smart evil villain when it comes to recruiting minions is finding ones who can be convinced to believe that the villain is good/it is the morally right thing to do to follow the villains orders.
- alhoon
- Invisible Menace
- Posts: 8907
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:46 pm
- Location: Chania or Athens // Greece
Re: Gothic evil and more evil questions
Yes, I understand but what I mean with "evil calls to evil" is not as in a happy partnership of backstabbing, treacherous people but more like a feeling that "something's off".
As I said, being "chosen" by Toben the Many doesn't mean he would spare you, it could mean he would decide to make you a Toben zombie while he's happy to just terrorize the rest of the village. The local infected werewolf when he changes goes to eat you, instead of going to the house next to you etc.
And being noticed by Azalin, Ivana or something is certainly NOT a good thing.
As I said, being "chosen" by Toben the Many doesn't mean he would spare you, it could mean he would decide to make you a Toben zombie while he's happy to just terrorize the rest of the village. The local infected werewolf when he changes goes to eat you, instead of going to the house next to you etc.
And being noticed by Azalin, Ivana or something is certainly NOT a good thing.
"You truly see what a person is made of, when you begin to slice into them" - Semirhage
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia
My DMGuild work!
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia
My DMGuild work!
Re: Gothic evil and more evil questions
Gonna take this a section at a time.
I realized that you can probably categorize the hierarchy of 'evil deeds' in sociological terms. Simply put, you could probably drop crimes into the following categories (worst to...less worse):
-Crimes against family
-Crimes against God (I'm using this phrase as a short hand for any and all religious/philosophical/moral guides and institutions)
-Crimes against nature
-Crimes against humanity (or racial equivalent)
-Crimes against the crown (again, shorthand for all political institutions)
Why this order? While how these play out is based on the cultural views at hand, there's a few basic underpinnings to the ranking. I'll explain family as the top tier last, for reasons.
Generally speaking, its pretty clear in terms of D&D settings that the higher powers most certainly hold sway, if not outright control, over nature (and humanity and governments for that matter), and its not an unusual belief in RL religions either. Nature, in many ways often likened to a power in-and-of-itself (and sometimes literally is), is the way of the world, and governs the lives of all living creatures. Humanity, in general, ranks above governments, in specific, because governments are by far more transient institutions.
But why is family first? In part its because family is sanctioned and endorsed by all the other institutions in the hierarchy. But even more than that, family is the most basic institution. We are part of institutions as a result of the circumstances of our birth...but we are part of the family institution by virtue of our having been born. It is the simplest and closest social institution to ourselves. And that's why its at the top: it is, simply put, our first institution, and often our strongest.
So this provides a general ranking...crimes are worse the higher up the list they can be placed. But I also see another very strong aspect that needs to be discussed: betrayal. By betrayal, I am referring specifically to the betrayal and breaking of trust, of an oath or vow, or some similar bond held in great esteem and reverence by the society in which it was forged. So while killing your sovereign king might be called 'betrayal', if you aren't actually bonded to him in such a manner (sworn bodyguard or close friend, say), it doesn't really meet this requirement.
Betrayal manages to take a normally terrible crime and vault it to the level of abhorrent. Betrayal can easily turn a minor crime into something that tops the list. Incidentally, this is why kin-slaying almost always tops the lists...it is not only a sin against family, by its very nature, it breaks that institution and betrays the bonds of blood and/or marriage. As for why parents seem to rank higher than children, wives, and other family members? I would guess that the bond between a person and the people who gave them life itself is the most sacred of all...sacred enough that when someone decided to shorten the Covenant of God with the Israelites to just the 10 major rules, they picked 'Honor they mother and father' for the list.
Most reactions will be tied to any after-affects of a failed Powers Check. That's sort of the point for powers checks to have a corrupting effect...you begin to take on an exterior that reflects your interior: twisted, malformed, and evil. Ironically, on ascending to Darklord status, most DLs end up losing or avoiding this side of powers checks, as they often have their 'normal' form (as in, normal for the state they've gotten themselves into for those who, say, became DLs on dying and becoming undead).
I would be hesitant to make any kind of effect that's 'supernatural' that ISN'T the aftereffect of a failed check just because of one of the main tenets of Gothic horror: nothing is what it seems, and evil can (and often does) look like anything. Even Darklords should have to work at uncovering the hidden aspects of other people and things. Its part of the mystique...and the danger...of Ravenloft.
There is something to the idea of 'nature reacting' as you put it...personally, I'd see that more as a function of very early stages following failed powers checks for 'minor' acts. Suddenly, dogs whine and slink away from you, tail between their legs...every room you stay in seems to have rats or ticks or something...normally calm horses are agitated when you ride them, ready to throw you at any little unexpected thing....etc. This could actually be a rather subtle, and devious, hint to a PC that they (or an NPC they are around) has something wrong.
As for how people would react to learning of someone's evil crimes? The majority of people, being non-evil (though not necessarily 'good'), would likely be upset, fearful, angry, depending on the crime and where it took place. But a crime high enough up the list? It might very well horrify and terrify the common man. Generally speaking, when you cross the line (which I consider to be variable between cultures and [slightly less so] individuals), you go from 'this man should be arrested and/or run out of town' to 'angry lynch mob with torches and pitchforks.'
Barovians seem to be rather unaware of Strahd's crimes...but if they learned (and incidentally actually believed the details), I suspect Barovia would be engulfed in flames. Ravenloft ensures this doesn't happen, but if Barovia hadn't been pulled in, the tale likely would have ended with a peasent mob burning the castle to the ground and Strahd cursing them for all eternity, etc.
Strangers gets interesting...I suspect most would be suspicious and/or fearful around the person in question, depending on their assessment of their safety in his presence. Most strangers, if not tied in some way to the crime or its victims/perpetrators, are going to take a very 'hands off' approach to most things. Especially in Ravenloft, where getting too involved in local issues leads to death almost all the time.
This was something I was actually pondering myself the other day. I got to thinking about it, here's some of my thoughts. Organization may or may not be found herein.alhoon wrote:[Note: *snipped* for space purposes; the following is a reply to the entire opening section of the OP down to the following line...]
What I would like to discuss is what would (from Gothic horror perspective) be the "point of no return". Which acts would be ultimately damning in Ravenloft aside of the couple of examples in the list?
I realized that you can probably categorize the hierarchy of 'evil deeds' in sociological terms. Simply put, you could probably drop crimes into the following categories (worst to...less worse):
-Crimes against family
-Crimes against God (I'm using this phrase as a short hand for any and all religious/philosophical/moral guides and institutions)
-Crimes against nature
-Crimes against humanity (or racial equivalent)
-Crimes against the crown (again, shorthand for all political institutions)
Why this order? While how these play out is based on the cultural views at hand, there's a few basic underpinnings to the ranking. I'll explain family as the top tier last, for reasons.
Generally speaking, its pretty clear in terms of D&D settings that the higher powers most certainly hold sway, if not outright control, over nature (and humanity and governments for that matter), and its not an unusual belief in RL religions either. Nature, in many ways often likened to a power in-and-of-itself (and sometimes literally is), is the way of the world, and governs the lives of all living creatures. Humanity, in general, ranks above governments, in specific, because governments are by far more transient institutions.
But why is family first? In part its because family is sanctioned and endorsed by all the other institutions in the hierarchy. But even more than that, family is the most basic institution. We are part of institutions as a result of the circumstances of our birth...but we are part of the family institution by virtue of our having been born. It is the simplest and closest social institution to ourselves. And that's why its at the top: it is, simply put, our first institution, and often our strongest.
So this provides a general ranking...crimes are worse the higher up the list they can be placed. But I also see another very strong aspect that needs to be discussed: betrayal. By betrayal, I am referring specifically to the betrayal and breaking of trust, of an oath or vow, or some similar bond held in great esteem and reverence by the society in which it was forged. So while killing your sovereign king might be called 'betrayal', if you aren't actually bonded to him in such a manner (sworn bodyguard or close friend, say), it doesn't really meet this requirement.
Betrayal manages to take a normally terrible crime and vault it to the level of abhorrent. Betrayal can easily turn a minor crime into something that tops the list. Incidentally, this is why kin-slaying almost always tops the lists...it is not only a sin against family, by its very nature, it breaks that institution and betrays the bonds of blood and/or marriage. As for why parents seem to rank higher than children, wives, and other family members? I would guess that the bond between a person and the people who gave them life itself is the most sacred of all...sacred enough that when someone decided to shorten the Covenant of God with the Israelites to just the 10 major rules, they picked 'Honor they mother and father' for the list.
Hrrrrm...here's a general outline of how I see it:Also, what should the "actual" NPC-wise effect of committing those be?
Aside of DPower checks and curses, how would "nature" react? Hags corrupt nature, Darklords dominate it, people suffering from DP curses may have problems with it.
And the most important and least-of-all touched subjects: How would the rest of the people react if they learned of one of those acts? Would they, deep down, know the sin is "inexcusable" whatever they hear? Would they react according to their individual beliefs with the "incomplete understanding of morality" law? Would they perhaps realize one such person as someone with a tainted soul?
Most reactions will be tied to any after-affects of a failed Powers Check. That's sort of the point for powers checks to have a corrupting effect...you begin to take on an exterior that reflects your interior: twisted, malformed, and evil. Ironically, on ascending to Darklord status, most DLs end up losing or avoiding this side of powers checks, as they often have their 'normal' form (as in, normal for the state they've gotten themselves into for those who, say, became DLs on dying and becoming undead).
I would be hesitant to make any kind of effect that's 'supernatural' that ISN'T the aftereffect of a failed check just because of one of the main tenets of Gothic horror: nothing is what it seems, and evil can (and often does) look like anything. Even Darklords should have to work at uncovering the hidden aspects of other people and things. Its part of the mystique...and the danger...of Ravenloft.
There is something to the idea of 'nature reacting' as you put it...personally, I'd see that more as a function of very early stages following failed powers checks for 'minor' acts. Suddenly, dogs whine and slink away from you, tail between their legs...every room you stay in seems to have rats or ticks or something...normally calm horses are agitated when you ride them, ready to throw you at any little unexpected thing....etc. This could actually be a rather subtle, and devious, hint to a PC that they (or an NPC they are around) has something wrong.
As for how people would react to learning of someone's evil crimes? The majority of people, being non-evil (though not necessarily 'good'), would likely be upset, fearful, angry, depending on the crime and where it took place. But a crime high enough up the list? It might very well horrify and terrify the common man. Generally speaking, when you cross the line (which I consider to be variable between cultures and [slightly less so] individuals), you go from 'this man should be arrested and/or run out of town' to 'angry lynch mob with torches and pitchforks.'
Barovians seem to be rather unaware of Strahd's crimes...but if they learned (and incidentally actually believed the details), I suspect Barovia would be engulfed in flames. Ravenloft ensures this doesn't happen, but if Barovia hadn't been pulled in, the tale likely would have ended with a peasent mob burning the castle to the ground and Strahd cursing them for all eternity, etc.
I say, yes. The Dark Powers have a rather objective view of morals, with a near-total emphasis on personal agency. The choice to BE drunk was made, the consequences are entirely self-caused and a powers check would be reasonable, though not so much Darklordship, unless this is but a single act in a long line of horrible things.Let me give a better example: A drunkard and bully, nominally paying respect to the morninglord gets a visit from his priest who try to get him off alcohol. When the priest tries to forcefully take the bottle away from the drunkard's hands tensions flare and the drunkard in addled anger stabs the priest... and kills him.
- Am I right to assume that (gothic horror perspective) whatever the drunkard's excuses ("I didn't mean it to happen!", "I was drunk!" "I wanted to just get him off!" etc) whether they are true or not, whether the drunkard believe them or not, Dark Powers (if they notice) will go "BOOOM!" on the drunkard?
It will vary, but unless this is a significantly, overtly religious realm, this would probably just fall in as a fairly normal murder, albeit particularly tragic due to the victim being a priest, the perpetrator being a drunkard, a scuffle was involved, and the murder was accidental not intentional or malicious. She MIGHT help him cover it up, depending on her personal feelings toward her husband and the priest (see: family bonds above), or she might see this as having gone to far. The rest of the village, unless the person in question is well-like and respected or the priest is loathed, would probably prefer the situation end with a hanging (or whatever is the norm for murder...in the time periods in question, often death or life in a dungeon).- Assume there are no witnesses and he runs to his wife. Will she instinctively feel that her husband has done something way worse than the usual "get drunk and beat someone senseless"? How about the rest of the village? How about the local smith? How about a stranger on the road?
Strangers gets interesting...I suspect most would be suspicious and/or fearful around the person in question, depending on their assessment of their safety in his presence. Most strangers, if not tied in some way to the crime or its victims/perpetrators, are going to take a very 'hands off' approach to most things. Especially in Ravenloft, where getting too involved in local issues leads to death almost all the time.
If you mean player characters...that's up to them...influenced by their proximity to the issue and the moral standings of their characters.How about the PCs?
Unless he's been warped in some way, I stand with my earlier assessment that nature won't really react. In fact, I'd go so far to say that a dog would likely still be his loyal pet, faithful to the end when the mob comes to take him away...after all, there's a lot of trust in that kind of bond, and I'd argue it takes a lot more to overcome it. And that kind of sadness fits Ravenloft as well: 'the man's not all bad, he obviously treats his dog well...its too bad the dog is the only one he doesn't beat when drunk.'- How will -nature- react (let alone the Dark Powers for a moment) ? Will his dog, faithful companion till that point shun him feeling his master has committed a terrible, inexcusable, soul-shattering sin? Will it start raining? Will vermin be more attracted to him?
Supernatural evil things might react differently if they learn of his deeds, but otherwise, he's indistinguishable from the rest of the human cattle- How about other evil people? Does evil call to evil? Will say Ivana, if she's passing by "feel" something in the man? Will the local werewolf be more likely to pay him a visit? Will Toben the Many decide he will kill the rest of the village but make him a part? Will a fiend decide to pay a visit?
- alhoon
- Invisible Menace
- Posts: 8907
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:46 pm
- Location: Chania or Athens // Greece
Re: Gothic evil and more evil questions
Cromstar, I find your views extremely interesting and helpful.
Crimes against nature: I haven't thought about "crimes against nature" that way, but you seem to have a point. After all, making of undead is a crime against nature and it's considered bad. It certainly makes what Markov did seem more... blasphemous. Men are not SUPPOSED to have chicken wings and it's not your job to graft some.
I wish I've read that before I ran an adventure with evil clerics turning people to evil half-scorpion things...
And a question here: Is making stone golems etc a crime against nature? Even with the arcane forms, you rip an elemental spirit out of it's natural plane of existence put it in bind it in an unnatural, for it, element (stone, clay, iron) and form and bind it to serve you.
Just because you need a guard.
Reeks of Hubris and could be considered a crime against nature.
About "nothing is what it seems, and evil can (and often does) look like anything": Sounds good. I'm convinced. For atmosphere, I'll give more "there's something wrong with him" effects of Power check failures rather than "he has to eat maggots".
About "People would horrify": With the advent of TV and especially internet, we've been very desensitized, so I can't actually find the line between "I am shocked"\"I pick up my pitchfork" for each society so to speak. Falkovnians are probably the most desensitized of them all, passing around rotting corpses on pikes every day.
About the drunkard that killed the priest: I was talking in a subconscious level. As for the "normal people" you covered it above with "probably not" which seems to be the consensus.
When asking about supernatural evil I was also speaking subconscious level. There's a lot of stories about feeling that an item of power or place is "tainted" and appeals\draws attention of evil people. Hence the evil calls to evil thing.
Oh, and a pet peeve: killing a priest was considered in renaissance a terrible crime where the perpetrator would die slowly and cruelly, not just a simple hanging.
Crimes against nature: I haven't thought about "crimes against nature" that way, but you seem to have a point. After all, making of undead is a crime against nature and it's considered bad. It certainly makes what Markov did seem more... blasphemous. Men are not SUPPOSED to have chicken wings and it's not your job to graft some.
I wish I've read that before I ran an adventure with evil clerics turning people to evil half-scorpion things...
And a question here: Is making stone golems etc a crime against nature? Even with the arcane forms, you rip an elemental spirit out of it's natural plane of existence put it in bind it in an unnatural, for it, element (stone, clay, iron) and form and bind it to serve you.
Just because you need a guard.
Reeks of Hubris and could be considered a crime against nature.
About "nothing is what it seems, and evil can (and often does) look like anything": Sounds good. I'm convinced. For atmosphere, I'll give more "there's something wrong with him" effects of Power check failures rather than "he has to eat maggots".
About "People would horrify": With the advent of TV and especially internet, we've been very desensitized, so I can't actually find the line between "I am shocked"\"I pick up my pitchfork" for each society so to speak. Falkovnians are probably the most desensitized of them all, passing around rotting corpses on pikes every day.
About the drunkard that killed the priest: I was talking in a subconscious level. As for the "normal people" you covered it above with "probably not" which seems to be the consensus.
When asking about supernatural evil I was also speaking subconscious level. There's a lot of stories about feeling that an item of power or place is "tainted" and appeals\draws attention of evil people. Hence the evil calls to evil thing.
Oh, and a pet peeve: killing a priest was considered in renaissance a terrible crime where the perpetrator would die slowly and cruelly, not just a simple hanging.
"You truly see what a person is made of, when you begin to slice into them" - Semirhage
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia
My DMGuild work!
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia
My DMGuild work!
- The Lesser Evil
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:17 am
Re: Gothic evil and more evil questions
There's a bit about lycanthropes recognizing each other as such in Van Richten's Guide to Werebeasts/Monster Hunter's Compendium I upon meeting each other. (Indeed, they actually say "evil calls to evil"). (Lycanthropes of different types usually shun each other.) Animals can sometimes recognize lycanthropes for whom they are (with pack animals like wolves typically cowing before the lycanthrope and some domesticated animals becoming unnerved.)
I think on a more general level for how people react on a conscious/subconscious level to people who have perpetrated evil, there's a lot of individual factors to consider to make a blanket statement.
The evil drawing to evil in a general sense may be specific subconscious calling by the Dark Powers for whatever shenanigans they have in mind (i.e., plot points) rather than a general rule.
I think on a more general level for how people react on a conscious/subconscious level to people who have perpetrated evil, there's a lot of individual factors to consider to make a blanket statement.
The evil drawing to evil in a general sense may be specific subconscious calling by the Dark Powers for whatever shenanigans they have in mind (i.e., plot points) rather than a general rule.
- The Lesser Evil
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:17 am
Re: Gothic evil and more evil questions
Re:hubris/crimes against nature, this is something of a theme that has been bothering me about Ravenloft (and I guess a lot of the the other popular works based on Frankenstein). While I know little to nothing of literature critique or whatever, my take away from Frankenstein wasn't so much the creation of life/science is bad! theme but rather the abandonment of it (the refusal of responsibility by a scientist to care for his creations and/or deal with the consequences of them). Frankenstein's monster was not evil but nature, but he became that way through the rejection/abandonment of his creator and then henceforth rejection of all society. (Frankenstein wouldn't even give him a name other than insults like devil, monster, creature, etc.)alhoon wrote: Reeks of Hubris and could be considered a crime against nature.
My ultimate takeaway was that Frankenstein's crime (or at least, not his greatest) crime wasn't creating an artificial being but his betrayal and forsaking of it. Really, for the most part, most of the stuff in Frankenstein could have happened with any normal abandoned child. (I guess this would tie Frankenstein's crimes to the highest of crimes, those being against family, as mentioned above by Cromstar.)
Going back to Ravenloft, that's why I have mixed feeling about Mordenheim, Adam, and Elise. The part that bothers me is that if Mordenheim had cast out Adam as Elise's insistence, he would've been doing the same thing as Frankenstein did to his creation. If I had to take my spin on the folly of the choices that Mordenheim did make, it was that he neglected Adam's moral education and didn't teach Adam that his affections for Elise were wrong but still using him (and later, Eva) as an ongoing science experiment. Treating people as objects, basically.
- alhoon
- Invisible Menace
- Posts: 8907
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:46 pm
- Location: Chania or Athens // Greece
Re: Gothic evil and more evil questions
Mordenheim didn't care at all about Adam, the person.
He proved his point, he proved he was totally awesome and did what nobody could ever do, he proved he was the equal of Gods. The problem started with the fact that the proof of his awesomeness was not a nice "here's your nobel prize!" papyrus nailed on the wall, but a 7' tall monster. If Mordenheim had received a nobel prize being rewarded officially the biggest title by all academicians etc... he could have killed Adam without too much thought.
He proved his point, he proved he was totally awesome and did what nobody could ever do, he proved he was the equal of Gods. The problem started with the fact that the proof of his awesomeness was not a nice "here's your nobel prize!" papyrus nailed on the wall, but a 7' tall monster. If Mordenheim had received a nobel prize being rewarded officially the biggest title by all academicians etc... he could have killed Adam without too much thought.
"You truly see what a person is made of, when you begin to slice into them" - Semirhage
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia
My DMGuild work!
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia
My DMGuild work!
Re: Gothic evil and more evil questions
Yeah, Markov is the poster child for what crimes against nature are. His original experiments on pigs were...disturbing, but probably not illegal per se. Just super, super creepy. The kind of thing one's wife would freak out about, and then the village would run you out of town for...even if you hadn't decided to add her to your experiments.
Skimming Van Richten's Guide to the Created also cuts against my initial feeling. Though it focuses heavily on the Frankenstein's creature (not a flesh golem as they were originally defined, though often called that anyway), in the general information section at the beginning, it clearly states that it applies to all golems as well. And Van Richten clearly states only a madman would create any kind of golem.
Add on to this that the spells and techniques used in normal golem creation (geas and wish spells for wizards, for example) and the Dark Powers have to be involved. I'm betting that most golems are not actually bound by their creator's will...unless the DPs approve of the request.
So, yes, creating a golem in Ravenloft is an overtly evil act. If you have the means and knowledge to make you, you almost certainly have to be aware that you are enslaving some kind of spirit to live in the thing without its permission. That's an evil act. Add on that you are appealing (knowingly or not) to the Dark Powers (via the wish spell, as all wishes in Ravenloft are approved/denied by the DPs)...and you have a high likely-hood the golem created will be evil or something equally awful. That's some fairly high level evil acts (enslaving a spirit possibly for all eternity depending on the tasks given it).
As for where to draw the line...hrmmm, that is tricky. And it is very much a judgement call to be made. Generally speaking, the crimes committed by any Darklord are way over the top...anyone evil enough to either earn a domain after living in RL, or to have gained the notice of the DPs from outside Ravenloft...those are the kinds of things mobs would probably form over in their respective societies. I've always held the rule that a Darklord is judged by the standards of his species and culture (so undead are judged by what they were before they became undead), so that gives at least some idea of what is too far.
I try and put myself in the shoes of a normal citizen and ask 'What sorts of awful things is this person likely to encounter? Those are the things they can 'tolerate,' so if we go beyond that we will cross the like quickly.' So, if, say, someone might be expected to know about murders and the like, then murder isn't too far. But cutting the victim up and leaving it in a basket on his family's doorstep? That's sick. Cutting the victim up and feeding him to people in pies? That is WAY over the line.
But religion in D&D is...different. And even more so in Ravenloft, where even the strongest and most devout priests can't directly contact their gods. Barovia in the original sets is described as having just given up on religion, with few attending services of any kind, churches in disrepair, many of them even lacking priests. Killing a priest there probably wouldn't draw any extra attention.
In G'Henna? Well, Petrov loves to carry out his punishment, and killing one of his priests is probably in the top 5 'do nots'.
I suspect in Kartakass, its killing a Meistersinger that's worst of all. They do fulfill many of a priest's roles at that.
Part of the problem with figuring how to handle priests in the setting is that religions, even in Ravenloft, are many, compared to the societies from the real world they are based on. Is there a difference between an Ezran follower killing an Ezran priest than if the killer (or the priest) followed the Morning Lord instead? Is there a difference if the priest is of a religion different from the locals? These are questions I don't really have a good answer too...lots of variables, pretty hard to shorthand them all.
-Child abandonment
-Something along the lines of causing pain and suffering
-Medical malpractice (this one was mostly just there b/c 3 charges)
I still stand by the first charge as being one of Victor's two biggest crimes, much like you said. The other big one? When the Creature tells Victor about its murders, it informs him that it will continue to kill...that it plans to kill those Victor loves, those that are closest to him, to torment him ceaselessly. Victor knows this...yet, in order to cover up the horrible things he did in creating the Creature, Victor tells NONE of the people who are in danger. They died for his pride.
Mordenheim and Adam, of course, are not quite the same. Their story is different from Victor's, and thus their crimes are different.
My original answer was going to be 'not really' but...I reread the 2nd edition MM entry on golems and now I'm kind of wondering how any good beings can create a golem. It straight up says the spirit is unhappy with what happens, and would willing turn against the summoner if it could. I assume that clay golems are different from the others because only LG priests can create them...and the rules for Ravenloft in 2nd edition actually seem to support that, oddly enough. Clay golems can't be *created* in Ravenloft, as it requires the use of the commune spell that was rendered unusable in Ravenloft.alhoon wrote: And a question here: Is making stone golems etc a crime against nature? Even with the arcane forms, you rip an elemental spirit out of it's natural plane of existence put it in bind it in an unnatural, for it, element (stone, clay, iron) and form and bind it to serve you.
Just because you need a guard.
Reeks of Hubris and could be considered a crime against nature.
Skimming Van Richten's Guide to the Created also cuts against my initial feeling. Though it focuses heavily on the Frankenstein's creature (not a flesh golem as they were originally defined, though often called that anyway), in the general information section at the beginning, it clearly states that it applies to all golems as well. And Van Richten clearly states only a madman would create any kind of golem.
Add on to this that the spells and techniques used in normal golem creation (geas and wish spells for wizards, for example) and the Dark Powers have to be involved. I'm betting that most golems are not actually bound by their creator's will...unless the DPs approve of the request.
So, yes, creating a golem in Ravenloft is an overtly evil act. If you have the means and knowledge to make you, you almost certainly have to be aware that you are enslaving some kind of spirit to live in the thing without its permission. That's an evil act. Add on that you are appealing (knowingly or not) to the Dark Powers (via the wish spell, as all wishes in Ravenloft are approved/denied by the DPs)...and you have a high likely-hood the golem created will be evil or something equally awful. That's some fairly high level evil acts (enslaving a spirit possibly for all eternity depending on the tasks given it).
Yeah, Falkovnians are likely horribly desensitized to normal human suffering and some gruesome things. Soldiers are likely not affected much by undead in Falkovnia, courtesy of their spats with Darkon. But half-man/half-animal hybrids slobering around a village or wizards controlling men like puppets? I bet those would get a reaction from the people. Barovia is surprisingly not nearly so desensitized, despite the fact that they've given up hope so much most of them feel the gods have abandoned them to their doom.About "People would horrify": With the advent of TV and especially internet, we've been very desensitized, so I can't actually find the line between "I am shocked"\"I pick up my pitchfork" for each society so to speak. Falkovnians are probably the most desensitized of them all, passing around rotting corpses on pikes every day.
As for where to draw the line...hrmmm, that is tricky. And it is very much a judgement call to be made. Generally speaking, the crimes committed by any Darklord are way over the top...anyone evil enough to either earn a domain after living in RL, or to have gained the notice of the DPs from outside Ravenloft...those are the kinds of things mobs would probably form over in their respective societies. I've always held the rule that a Darklord is judged by the standards of his species and culture (so undead are judged by what they were before they became undead), so that gives at least some idea of what is too far.
I try and put myself in the shoes of a normal citizen and ask 'What sorts of awful things is this person likely to encounter? Those are the things they can 'tolerate,' so if we go beyond that we will cross the like quickly.' So, if, say, someone might be expected to know about murders and the like, then murder isn't too far. But cutting the victim up and leaving it in a basket on his family's doorstep? That's sick. Cutting the victim up and feeding him to people in pies? That is WAY over the line.
I see what you are getting at and I say there is definitely a place for that in Ravenloft (and really any campaign). I'd say that if someone did manage to catch the attention of the Dark Powers...then anything is possible. I would not put it beyond them to maneuver an evil man into a set-up that would increase his chances to do evil, like a chance encounter with a werewolf that gets him infected. And of course, its a fine Gothic tradition for people to feel drawn to places, things, or other people.When asking about supernatural evil I was also speaking subconscious level. There's a lot of stories about feeling that an item of power or place is "tainted" and appeals\draws attention of evil people. Hence the evil calls to evil thing.
I hate broad generalities, myself. I mean, certainly it was pretty awful in highly religious Christian society to do so...or at least, it was up until the Reformation hit, and then things were much less clear cut. I bet in England most of the time, it was handled pretty much like any other murder with a trip to the noose or headsman's block unless you were the kind of person likely to get an invite to the Tower of London. But Spain? You'd probably wish you were dead very soon.Oh, and a pet peeve: killing a priest was considered in renaissance a terrible crime where the perpetrator would die slowly and cruelly, not just a simple hanging.
But religion in D&D is...different. And even more so in Ravenloft, where even the strongest and most devout priests can't directly contact their gods. Barovia in the original sets is described as having just given up on religion, with few attending services of any kind, churches in disrepair, many of them even lacking priests. Killing a priest there probably wouldn't draw any extra attention.
In G'Henna? Well, Petrov loves to carry out his punishment, and killing one of his priests is probably in the top 5 'do nots'.
I suspect in Kartakass, its killing a Meistersinger that's worst of all. They do fulfill many of a priest's roles at that.
Part of the problem with figuring how to handle priests in the setting is that religions, even in Ravenloft, are many, compared to the societies from the real world they are based on. Is there a difference between an Ezran follower killing an Ezran priest than if the killer (or the priest) followed the Morning Lord instead? Is there a difference if the priest is of a religion different from the locals? These are questions I don't really have a good answer too...lots of variables, pretty hard to shorthand them all.
When we read Frankenstein in my 12th grade English class, we held a mock civil trial for Victor Frankenstein. I represented the Creature, suing Victor. We leveled three charges at him:The Lesser Evil wrote:My ultimate takeaway was that Frankenstein's crime (or at least, not his greatest) crime wasn't creating an artificial being but his betrayal and forsaking of it. Really, for the most part, most of the stuff in Frankenstein could have happened with any normal abandoned child. (I guess this would tie Frankenstein's crimes to the highest of crimes, those being against family, as mentioned above by Cromstar.)
-Child abandonment
-Something along the lines of causing pain and suffering
-Medical malpractice (this one was mostly just there b/c 3 charges)
I still stand by the first charge as being one of Victor's two biggest crimes, much like you said. The other big one? When the Creature tells Victor about its murders, it informs him that it will continue to kill...that it plans to kill those Victor loves, those that are closest to him, to torment him ceaselessly. Victor knows this...yet, in order to cover up the horrible things he did in creating the Creature, Victor tells NONE of the people who are in danger. They died for his pride.
Mordenheim and Adam, of course, are not quite the same. Their story is different from Victor's, and thus their crimes are different.
- Zettaijin
- Evil Genius
- Posts: 667
- Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:30 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Himeji, Japan
Re: Gothic evil and more evil questions
The problem here is that history and Gothic literature while closely linked are not one and the same. Gothic literature was aimed not at scholars but a growing literate middle class (especially women) while history books seem to interest historians and other such individuals, hence why we spend so much time on the trials and tribulations of the ruling elites (the great "mouvance" of history) rather than the average person. Furthermore, the body of work considered to be part part of the extended corpus of "Gothic literature" spans centuries and comes from the combined minds of many authors with their own views and predispositions.
Gaming systems function differently, Ravenloft included.
In trying to synthesize all the varying trends, tendencies, views, values, and ideals in a single "system" is hard enough without having to tackle gaming rules.
And even if somehow a singularly brilliant individual were to somehow conjure a perfect storm wherein an acceptable compromise would be reached and could align a significant portion of the corpus into a well defined morality and view on the human condition on top of craft gaming rules that would fit the aforementioned elements we still have the ugly business of contemporary individuals having to deal with ideas that they may not agree with.
What purpose do we have in reproducing, even in play, values and ideas that we disagree with?
Often DMs and players prune the more revolting elements to somehow whitewash what would otherwise be considered somewhat offensive to contemporary sensibilities. I'm recalling an ugly debate on the old RL mailing list wherein a "purist" insisted that we stay as true to the shared values of the Gothic corpus and the dominant views on morality and humanity of the socio-historical context upon which RL was modelled.
Some disagreed and felt that some things were just unacceptable be they historically correct or faithful to the corpus.
As a side note, I read an interesting analysis of Dracula's "evil aberration" where the author offers that Dracula's greatest crime was not his undeath, but the sum of the transgressions against nature. He was the very embodiment of crimes against nature regarding his changing sexuality, gender, race, life/death, ethnicity, and social class.
Gaming systems function differently, Ravenloft included.
In trying to synthesize all the varying trends, tendencies, views, values, and ideals in a single "system" is hard enough without having to tackle gaming rules.
And even if somehow a singularly brilliant individual were to somehow conjure a perfect storm wherein an acceptable compromise would be reached and could align a significant portion of the corpus into a well defined morality and view on the human condition on top of craft gaming rules that would fit the aforementioned elements we still have the ugly business of contemporary individuals having to deal with ideas that they may not agree with.
What purpose do we have in reproducing, even in play, values and ideas that we disagree with?
Often DMs and players prune the more revolting elements to somehow whitewash what would otherwise be considered somewhat offensive to contemporary sensibilities. I'm recalling an ugly debate on the old RL mailing list wherein a "purist" insisted that we stay as true to the shared values of the Gothic corpus and the dominant views on morality and humanity of the socio-historical context upon which RL was modelled.
Some disagreed and felt that some things were just unacceptable be they historically correct or faithful to the corpus.
As a side note, I read an interesting analysis of Dracula's "evil aberration" where the author offers that Dracula's greatest crime was not his undeath, but the sum of the transgressions against nature. He was the very embodiment of crimes against nature regarding his changing sexuality, gender, race, life/death, ethnicity, and social class.
- alhoon
- Invisible Menace
- Posts: 8907
- Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 6:46 pm
- Location: Chania or Athens // Greece
Re: Gothic evil and more evil questions
Personally, I find it fun.Zettaijin wrote: What purpose do we have in reproducing, even in play, values and ideas that we disagree with?
Also Ravenloft, with all my questions etc is way more clear-cut than my own moral values.
I do that too, yes.Zettaijin wrote: Often DMs and players prune the more revolting elements to somehow whitewash what would otherwise be considered somewhat offensive to contemporary sensibilities.
A man in my Ravenloft games doesn't "own" his wife and children. So infidelity is equally bad in the eyes of the Dark powers for both man and wife.
The same with mixing races; A half-elf may not be socially accepted but a human mating with an elf is not an affront to nature whatever scholars of 1700s may have said about that.
The same of course is true for the social structure: A baron killing a serf just because he talked back to him is in my Ravenloft as evil as the serf that kills the baron, a notion that at 16th century would send me to the gallows.
"You truly see what a person is made of, when you begin to slice into them" - Semirhage
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia
My DMGuild work!
"I am not mad, no matter what you're implying." - Litalia
My DMGuild work!